Advertisement

Introduction

  • Arie Karniel
  • Yoram Reich
Chapter

Abstract

Managing Product Development Processes (PDP) and particularly New Product Development (NPD) processes is complex and challenging. Many NPD projects fail. In some cases, the management of the design process can be traced as the main cause of failure. While management practices and tools are successfully applied to managing other process types, they seem to fail in the context of NPD processes. NPD process management is more challenging than other processes since like other development processes, the process plans continuously change and processes are iterative, but in addition, NPD processes are unique. The plan of the development process should reflect the product-related knowledge. The product knowledge context is dynamically evolving during the process, incorporating knowledge about the product, requirements, technology, and other factors.

Keywords

Product Knowledge Design Activity Business Rule Product Development Process Product Lifecycle Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams M, Edmond D, and Hofstede AHM ter (2003) The application of activity theory to dynamic workflow adaptation issues. 7th Pacific Asia Conf on Inf Sys, Adelaide, South Australia, JulyGoogle Scholar
  2. Barjis J, Dietz JL (2000) Business process modeling and analysis using GERT networks. In: Filipe J (ed) Enterprise Inf Sys, 71–80Google Scholar
  3. Beck K (2000) Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Browning TR, Fricke E, Negele H (2006) Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Sys Eng 9(2):104–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Business Rules Group (2000) Defining business rules—What are they really? The business rules group, Final report. http://www.businessrulesgroup.org/first_paper/BRG-whatisBR_3ed.pdf. Accessed July 2010
  6. Cho SH, Eppinger SD (2005) A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans on Eng Manag 52(3):316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory T (1999) Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, USA, 99–1 Planning ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. Gruhn V, Laue R (2006) Complexity Metrics for Business Process Models. In: 9th Int Conf on business Inf Sys (BIS 2006), Klagenfurt, Austria, Lect Notes in Informatics, 85:1–12Google Scholar
  9. Karniel A (2009) Managing the Dynamics of Product Development Processes for New Product Development. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  10. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007a) Simulating design processes with self-iteration activities based on DSM planning. IEEE Proc of the Int Conf on Sys Eng and Modeling-ICSEM’07, 33–41, Haifa, MarchGoogle Scholar
  11. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007b) Managing dynamic new product development processes. Proc of the 17th Annual Int Symposium of The Int Council on Sys Eng INCOSE’07, San Diego, California, JuneGoogle Scholar
  12. Karniel A, Reich Y (2007c) A coherent interpretation of DSM plan for PDP simulation. In Proc of the Int Conf on Eng Design, ICED 07, Paris, AugustGoogle Scholar
  13. Mangan P, Sadiq S (2003) A constraint specification approach to building flexible workflows. J Res and Practice in Inf Technol 35(1):21–39Google Scholar
  14. Milner R (1999) Communicating and mobil systems: the π–calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Neumann K (1990) Stochastic project networks: Temporal analysis, scheduling and cost minimization. Springer-Verlag, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004a) Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems—A survey. Data Knowledge Eng 50(1):9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rinderle S, Reichert M, Dadam P (2004b) Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases 16(1):91–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rinderle S, Weber B, Reichert M, Wild W (2005) Integrating process learning and process evolution—A semantics based approach. In: Aalst WMP van der et al. (eds) BPM 2005, Lect Notes in Comput Sci, 3649: 252–267, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  19. Saaksvuori A, Immonen A (2008) Product lifecycle management, 3rd edn. Springer,  Google Scholar
  20. Stark J (2005) Product lifecycle management: 21st century paradigm for product realization. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Subrahmanian E, Reich Y, Konda SL, Dutoit A, Cunningham D, Patrick R, Thomas M, Westerberg AW (1997) The n-dim approach to building design support systems, in Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology DTM′’97, (New York, NY), ASMEGoogle Scholar
  22. Subrahmanian E, Sudarsan R, Fenves S, Foufou S, Sriram RD (2005) Product lifecycle management support: A challenge in supporting product design and manufacturing in a networked economy. Int J Product Lifecycle Manag 1(1):4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Aalst WMP (1998) The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J Circ Sys and Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf and Softw Technol 41:639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Aalst WMP, Hofstede AHM ter (2005) YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Inf Sys 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Aalst WMP, Hofstede AHM ter, Weske M (2003) Business process management: A survey. Int conf on Bus Process Manag, BPM 2003, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Lect Notes in Comput Sci, 2678:1–12, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  27. Verbeek HMW, van der Aalst WMP (2004) XRL/Woflan: Verification and extensibility of an XML/Petri-net-based language for inter-organizational workflows. Inf Technol Manag 5:65–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westfechtel B (1999) Models and tools for managing development processes. Lect Notes in Comput Sci, vol. 1646, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. WFMC (1999) Workflow management coalition terminology and glossary, Technical report WFMC-TC-1011, issue 3, Workflow Management CoalitionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations